Share via

Oscar Pistorius should have been tried for manslaughter, his lawyer said
today, as he admitted the athlete had been negligent with a gun but insisted
he was innocent of murder.

On the final day of evidence in the five-month trial, Barry Roux said
Pistorious had killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, because of an
“involuntary reflexive response” to a sound in his bathroom. He was
terrified, disabled, and primed to react to sounds when he pulled the
trigger, but he was neither liable nor negligent for the “dire consequences
of the shooting,” he argued in his last submission.

Mr Pistorius fired

Subscribe now

Login

Already a subscriber?

To see the full article you need to subscribe

Subscribe

Login

1/3

Oscar Pistorius takes a sip of water as the opposing sides make their closing arguments

August 8 2014 Herman Verwey/AP

Oscar Pistorius takes a sip of water as the opposing sides make their closing arguments

August 8 2014 Herman Verwey/AP

Mr Pistorius, centre, arriving at the High Court today in Pretoria

August 8 2014 Reuters

June and Barry Steenkamp, parents of Mr Pistorius' dead girlfriend, in court today

August 8 2014 AFP/Getty Images

Can she trust Oscar?

As the only witness to what happened inside his house, Oscar Pistorius’s testimony was crucial. However, the prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, said he was an "appalling witness" who tailored his evidence to "defend his life". He was "more concerned with the implications of his answers than the truth" — an example of which was when he said he didn’t know what "zombie-stoppers" were; moments before he was forced to admit using the phrase in a video shown to the court which showed him shooting a watermelon and comparing it to a person’s brain.

However, on the details of what happened the night he shot his girlfriend, his lawyers insisted that the central elements of his story never changed. He volunteered information about his screams for help, and breaking down the toilet door with a cricket bat, which were corroborated by neighbours’ statements long before he knew about them. His memory wasn’t perfect, they said, because he was suffering from post-traumatic stress and was on anti-depressants.

Can she trust the police?

The prosecution said the athlete’s account "could not possibly be true" because it jarred with police photographs from the scene. The precise location of key exhibits, including his duvet, Ms Steenkamp’s jeans, two bedroom fans and an extension cable with a plugboard were all used by the prosecution to pick holes in his testimony. However, his lawyers showed that police had moved exhibits, contaminated the scene and lied about who had access to the bedroom and the bathroom after the shooting.

Mr Roux said the police’s own photographs showed they had disturbed the scene and he accused the state of failing to produce key pieces of evidence because they knew it would undermine their case.

In perhaps the most damning indictment of their failures, a number of watches went missing from Mr Pistorius’s bedroom, and the only people who had access were police officers. "What you cannot then do is make the accused a liar because of the disturbance of the scene by the police," Mr Roux insisted.

When did Reeva die?

The timeline of events is crucial, but contested. If Ms Steenkamp died before 3.15am, as the defence says, then the screams the neighbours heard could only have come from Mr Pistorius.

The second set of noises which sounded similar to gunshots were caused by a cricket bat, according to the defence, when Mr Pistorius broke down the door.

According to the prosecution, Ms Steenkamp died at 3.17am, and the screams the neighbours heard were hers. They claimed that she had gone downstairs at 1am to eat, which is supported by the post-mortem results. A neighbour heard an argument at about 2am, which contradicts the athlete’s claims they went to sleep at about 10pm.

How significant was his disability?

Even if the judge rules that Mr Pistorius didn’t know his girlfriend was behind the toilet door, she can still find him guilty of either murder or culpable homicide if she thinks he acted unreasonably, but she will have to factor in his disability, into what she considers reasonable.